Harland-White v The Queen - [1998] TASSC 1

1/1998

PARTIES:  HARLAND-WHITE,Gregory John
  v
  R

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  CCA 41/1997
DELIVERED:  4 February 1998
HEARING DATE/S:  4 November 1997
JUDGMENT OF:  Underwood, Wright and Crawford JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law - Jurisdiction, practice and procedure - Judgment and punishment - Sentence - Factors to be taken into account - Parity - Generally - Sentencing tariff - Duty to exercise independent discretion - Level of sentencing only one factor in the proper exercise of the discretion.

R v Nixon (1993) 66 A Crim R 83; R v Dowie [1989] Tas R 167; Postiglione v R (1997) 145 ALR 408, applied.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [835]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  In Person
             Respondent:  C J Geason
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  In Person
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment category classification:
Judgment ID Number:  1/1998
Number of pages:  8

Serial No 1/1998
File No CCA 41/1997

GREGORY JOHN HARLAND-WHITE v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

UNDERWOOD J
WRIGHT J
CRAWFORD J
4 February 1998

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 1/1998
File No CCA 41/1997

GREGORY JOHN HARLAND-WHITE v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

UNDERWOOD J
4 February 1998

This is an appeal against a sentence of three years' imprisonment imposed on the appellant upon a plea of guilty to one count of burglary and one count of stealing. The appellant acquired some oxyacetylene cutting equipment and, with the help of another man, took this equipment to the Launceston General Hospital. The co-offender remained outside the hospital and waited. The appellant climbed up some scaffolding that was in place at the hospital in connection with some building work that had to be done. On gaining entry to the hospital through the roof, the appellant went to the pharmacy and cut open three safes. From these safes, the appellant removed a large quantity of drugs, mainly narcotics. The learned sentencing judge was told that the "street value" of these drugs was in the order of $250,000. There was a dispute at the sentencing hearing as to whether the appellant intended at the time he committed the crimes to sell any part of the stolen drugs. The learned sentencing judge made it clear at the time he passed sentence that he accepted that the appellant was addicted to narcotic substances. He said that it was not necessary to make a positive finding "that commercial gain was the primary motive behind the burglary". The learned sentencing judge found that the appellant "planned and prepared for the burglary in a professional manner". His Honour accepted that at the time of the taking, the appellant did not intend to sell the drugs, but quite properly took into account that having regard to the quantity involved, there was a substantial risk that some of them could find their way onto the street.
The appellant was a mature man, aged 32 at the time these crimes were committed. He had quite a substantial…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Harland-White v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1998] TASSC 1
Decision Date: 3 February 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Harland-White v The Queen before the Court of Criminal Appeal of Tasmania involved an appeal by Gregory John Harland-White against a sentence of three years' imprisonment imposed on him after he pleaded guilty to one count of burglary and one count of stealing. The crimes were committed at the Launceston General Hospital where Harland-White, with the assistance of a co-offender, entered the premises through the roof, broke into three safes in the pharmacy, and stole a large quantity of drugs, primarily narcotics, valued at approximately $250,000. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal, which held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the Court of Criminal Appeal centred around the appropriateness of the sentence, specifically whether it was manifestly excessive, and whether the sentencing judge had properly considered all relevant factors. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessively high compared to other cases and that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider his plea of guilty and other mitigating factors. The Court of Criminal Appeal considered the nature and seriousness of the crimes, the appellant's criminal history, and the sentencing principles applicable to the case.

The Court of Criminal Appeal reasoned that the crimes were premeditated, planned, and involved a breach of the security of a public institution. The gravity of the offences was heightened by the large quantity of stolen drugs, which posed a risk of being distributed to the public and causing harm. The Court held that the sentence of three years' imprisonment, to be served consecutively to an existing sentence, was justified given the seriousness of the crimes and the need to act as a deterrent. The Court emphasised that while sentencing tariffs provide a guide, they are not rigid rules and the discretion of the sentencing judge must be exercised by considering all relevant factors on a case-by-case basis.

In conclusion, the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The Court upheld the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, finding that it reflected the gravity of the appellant's criminal conduct and served the purposes of punishment and deterrence.

Orders